ewilen

used games Okay, that's a good point. I did get Battlecry from that store when I was in a hurry and couldn't go the online route. For my other used (and new) games, though, I've bought online via eBay and other sources. Perhaps the "plugged-in" nature of the video game audience helps to account for the relative dearth of brick & mortar independents who deal in used games, compared to used book & record stores.

Could be a great application for HydroSpan. Edit: although, reading a bit more closely, since each casting ends up 1.6 times the previous one, it would go from 1/100 to about 1/60. Not sure how to do an intermediate size.

There's a game store down the corner which I pass every day on my way to/from work; I've even bought a game or two there, but I couldn't tell you if it's EB or Gamestop. At first this seemed to me like another outrageous example of monopoly-building (such as the Adobe-Macromedia deal), but then I have to ask--what kind of service do these stores provide, anyway? (No offense to mikeszekeley.) I don't buy that many games, and the ones I've bought have mostly been through online sources. What's the advantage of buying at a specialty store as opposed to Target, Fry's, CompUSA, etc.?

Bones saved everyone's cookies in The Amok Time. Anyway, I voted for Kirk.

Earth moves around a lot, though. Sol...maybe, but the sun is moving around the galaxy. I'd use the center of the galaxy.

DEATH TO THE NEWB... Er, uh, sorry about that. Seriously, that's sort of a FAQ, although it's more the other way around--why is the VF-1 smaller than the VF-0? And the answer, according to Kawamori, is that the VF-1 was designed to be "size compatible" with infiltrating enemy warships, as well as small for the sake of easy stowage on space carriers. Whereas the VF-0 is a testbed for variable technology, not originally intended for operational use. Therefore we can surmise that at the time the VF-0 was originally designed, it was easier to make it big, perhaps partly because conventional engines with necessary power output had to be big (and needed somewhere to store all their fuel). Let me see if I can find the reference for my first claim... Okay, here's the best info: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...topic=298&st=60 Look for the post by Gokurakumaru. Or you can run the following through your favorite translator. (Better yet, bug someone who knows Japanese.) According to Gokurakumaru, it's from an interview with Kawamori which appears in the booklet accompanying one of the official M0 DVD's.

If the option had been there, I'd have voted for a Regult, but since it wasn't I picked the VF-4.

Indeed, the two pics are not at the same scale. Although battroid height stats aren't available for the VF-0, if we extrapolate from the fighter stats and ignore any differences in proportion, the VF-0 should be about 30% taller than the VF-1. Anyway, it's a nice pic. Is there a larger version hosted somewhere? And welcome to MW, grss1982.

This could be true but I think you will search in vain for concrete evidence comparing the strength of Destroid and Valkyrie armor.

I really don't think we can draw any hard conclusions from the anime. The great equalizer really is the fact that Valks are hero mecha and so we often see them winning, while destroids are nearly always piloted by extras, so they blow up a lot. I will note that several of the Zentradi mecha are armed with "impact cannon" which sounds to me like something that shoots bullets/shells. Also, Actually, there's a little bit more to it, namely design of the shell/penetrator. For example, the modern Abrams gun fires something that's more like a dart than a bullet. This not only reduces wind drag but also provides a greater penetration ability than, say, a bullet-shaped slug of the same mass travelling at the same speed. With bullet-shaped projectiles, the shape of the nose and the composition of the metal (use of an armor-piercing cap, for example) are also factors in the design. Some discussion can be found athttp://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_2.html http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-055.htm At some point I'd like to get some of the old Macross board wargames by Tsukuda. They might at least provide a semiofficial view of the relative abilities of the various Macross hardware, though I really don't know to what extent they were sanctioned by Big West and/or Kawamori.

Ah, okay, I just learned about thermoelectric generators. Regardless of efficiency in real life, yes, I suppose that overtechnology which can make fusion reactors to power airplanes, and SWAG armor to protect them, might be able to make a highly efficient thermoelectric generator/thermocouple. The discrepancy in the power rating for the Valk might even reflect the difference in power output between the turbines and the thermocouples. The model I'm referring to isn't one of the cutaway diagrams, but something I've discussed several times. Briefly, working from ideas suggested by others, I envision the heat from the reactor being transferred to compressed air via a heat exchanger inside the engine. The air exits the back of the engine, providing thrust (when in flight) and spinning a turbine which is connected to a compressor at the front of the engine. In space, the Valk injects stored reaction mass into the engine; this is heated and expands, shooting out the back of the engine which now functions as a rocket. (Keeping the turbine in the loop allows electricity to be generated even if the compressor isn't needed.) I agree with the problems of using this in space; however, some big rechargeable batteries can partly overcome the problem by not requiring the turbines to run all the time. It could be that thermocouples are used in combination with turbines, so that even if all reaction mass is used, you still have some power generation ability. It might be interesting/instructive to guess at how the Destroids generate power. All but the Cheyenne are listed as having thermonuclear reactors, and all but the monster have their engine rated in terms of shp. To me this suggests that they do in fact use turbines. (The monster's engine is rated in bhp.)

I was going to say the same thing, but note that Egan has (link)Okay, it's not definitive, but the implication is that SWAG is only used in battroid. But even if that's the case, some or all later Valks could be made of super-tough advanced materials.

I don't know how I missed this thread before, but anyway--congrats, Egan!

Sounds likely, although I also don't remember the details of the scene--i.e., was the Spartan hit, or did Hikaru dodge all the bullets? I hate to say it, but trying to figure out how combat works in Macross by watching the cartoons is pretty much like researching World War II by reading Sgt. Rock. There are rules...but they aren't the ones that hardware geeks are interested in.

JB0, about the method of getting electricity from the fusion reactors, I suppose it could be done directly but under the model of the Valk's engines that we've bandied about, it seems most likely that, even while not flying, the fusion reactors simply produce heat which in turn powers the turbines, and these then produce electricity. Against this is the fact that the leg intakes are closed in battroid, at least some of the time. If anyone can suggest a mechanism, or even point to a part in a diagram, that explains how power is generated/stored while in battroid mode, I'd like to see it. Gui, we just had a discussion of how we think SWAG might work over toward the end of this thread. Basically, several of us think that the system uses energy to actively strengthen the molecular bonds in the materials making up the Valk's body, so that it becomes more resistant to damage.

Looks cool. I must have seen most if not all of the original Ultraman shows when I was a kid. Then I reached an age where I thought it was too kiddified, but now I just remember how wonderfully imaginative the whole setup was.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing really conclusive in canonical sources about the Valk vs. Destroid question. It makes for a more interesting scenario if you assume that Destroids have superior armor to compensate for their lack of tactical flexibility, but unfortunately there's nothing to explicitly support that. For example, it's not clear that destroids have SWAG technology. The Valkyries' engines are far more powerful--650 MW each vs. 2800 bhp + 450 kW for the Tomahawk, which is only a little over 2.5 MW in all. That may not be enough surplus power for even a minimal SWAG system. (It's pretty likely that SWAG uses a majority of the normal capacity of a Valk's engines. Otherwise, SWAG would be available in fighter mode.) In conclusion, if destroids don't have SWAG, then Valks may be just as well protected, if not better, at least in battroid mode. BTW, note that the Cheyenne destroids were taken down by the SV-51 gunpods. (Maybe not a perfect example, since Cheyennes look lighter than the SDF Macross destroids.) As for offensive firepower, the Defender's gun is almost certainly more powerful than a Valk's, but that doesn't mean they aren't BOTH capable of defeating tank armor. I'd think most likely that if Valks were called upon to fight a bunch of tanks, they'd start by bombing them, then strafe the survivors from above. Operating in a "tank destroyer" mode (employing long range weapons from static positions) wouldn't make much sense. (Edit: if you use another rating from the Compendium, which says that the Valk's engines generate "17,680 PS for ground combat", that still comes to 13 MW.)

The VF-1's gunpod is a 55 mm Gatling gun. The A-10's is a 30 mm Gatling gun. While these may seem small compared to a modern MBT's 105mm-120mm gun, bear in mind that an aircraft will be firing onto the roof of a tank, which is generally not armored as well as the front. Remember the general rule of anime: mecha are better than tanks. If a VF-1's gun can take out a Queadluun Rau or a Glaug, it can shred a tank.

Okay, I see what you're saying. I don't think we know if it entails running an electric current through the armor or employs some other means. Anyway, I like the existing English version of the jargon, "energy converting armor".

Electric armor definitely isn't the same as what I'm suggesting for SWAG. I'm saying that that SWAG uses energy to strengthen the molecular bonds in the armor, thus increasing its resistance to penetration and deformation. Electric armor by contrast disrupts the jet of a shaped-charge weapon by zapping it with an electrical charge. While I could be wrong, it's commonly asserted that SWAG is why Valkyries are able to smash through buildings without being damaged. The description of SWAG which I'm advancing is consistent with this; electric armor isn't.

I have to agree with FV on this point. http://www.anime.net/macross/feedback/ Not described as a "shield" but as a method of strengthening the armor. http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/united_...s/variable/vf0/ Ditto. Based on the scanty information, I envision SWAG as a method of using energy to boost the strength of the molecular bonds in the armor, thus increasing its resistance to damage.

Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The Gunslinger in West World.

That's at least plausible, since the United Earth Government put out a story blaming anti-UN remnants for the SDF-1's disappearance.

Okay, I think the answer coming out of the chatter is, there's no real info on destroid employment prior to SW1, except for the Mayan incident. The Tomahawk entry at the Compendium states: So, note that the first production models available were Mark Ones, a type which probably hasn't ever been depicted in any canonical graphics. If you look at the Chronology, you'll see: No other conflicts noted until the Mayan incident in Sept. 2008 and then the start of SW1 in Feb. 2009. So, pretty much no destroid action prior to SW1. I suppose you could speculate that the mysterious "Earth Trekker" mecha got some use in the UN Wars, but we really don't know anything about them; the pictures from the Macross Hobby Handbook are just fan customs of dubious canonicity at best.

Yo're a bit behind the times as this subject have been a continuing work in progress for over 50 years. No, if it's a WIP, then I'm ahead of the times. Scout and APCs, HAPCs, and some support vehicles it may be possible. But for tanks and other combat oriented vehicles three men and four men crews are the smallest number realisticly possible. At least some of the combat vehicles posited for the FCS are supposed to have two-man crews. Whether this is realistically possible remains to be seen, in my opinion.